If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Ok. Let's step back. We know this is ACORN, ANSWER, SEIU and Soros, among others. Why are they deliberately allowing their people to provoke the authorities? Why the violence? Are they looking for a complete clampdown on the First Amendment?

Ok. Let's step back. We know this is ACORN, ANSWER, SEIU and Soros, among others. Why are they deliberately allowing their people to provoke the authorities? Why the violence? Are they looking for a complete clampdown on the First Amendment?

Whats the differense? They overstayed thier welcome by about a month ot 2 ! This is what the libs are all about.

Whats the differense? They overstayed thier welcome by about a month ot 2 ! This is what the libs are all about.

Look, if these organizations are running the show, they have a goal and it's political. Political goals are destroyed by violence. All I can figure is that they are taking the message of frustration that many lefties feel and are deliberately linking it with violence.

Obama hasn't really endorsed OWS, even though we know it's connected behind the scenes to his own political advisor, Patrick Gaspard. Now ostensibly the movement is there to help Obama in some way. Either it's supposed to energize the left wing base or it's supposed to discredit that base and help Obama get the independent voters. The violence does discredit the base.

Look, if these organizations are running the show, they have a goal and it's political. Political goals are destroyed by violence. All I can figure is that they are taking the message of frustration that many lefties feel and are deliberately linking it with violence.

Obama hasn't really endorsed OWS, even though we know it's connected behind the scenes to his own political advisor, Patrick Gaspard. Now ostensibly the movement is there to help Obama in some way. Either it's supposed to energize the left wing base or it's supposed to discredit that base and help Obama get the independent voters. The violence does discredit the base.

"It [OWS] expresses the frustrations that the American people feel; that we had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, huge collatoral damage all throughout the country, all across main street. And yet, you're still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us in this problem in the first place. So yes, I think people are frustrated and the protestors are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works."

This is not an endorsement of the movement at all. In fact, this statement is carefully crafted (by a speechwriter, no doubt) to sound like it is endorsing the movement while not, in fact, endorsing it. Obama is carefully separating the message (frustration with the continuing abuses of Wall Street) from the protestors themselves, on whom he gives no opinion. And he isn't saying he agrees with the beliefs or the frustration. He is merely acknowledging what the general public believes to be true about OWS from media accounts.

This statement gives him all kinds of plausible deniability because he never comes right out and says (1) "I endorse Occupy Wall Street" or (2) "I think they are right in what they believe". It is essentially a SUMMARY of what is happening, not an opinion on it. These words were VERY carefully chosen. (You can bet he needed that teleprompter for this one.)